Wednesday, December 29, 2021

Beauty, Leisure and Social Status

 An Unrealistic Ideal

Women in our society are subject to a great deal pressure to conform to an unrealistic ideal of beauty, and since it is almost impossible for most of them to reach that ideal, they are often uncomfortable about their appearance. Entire industries have grown up to profit from that discomfort and to sell them products that they hope will allow them to approach the ideal. We have skincare and haircare products; we have makeup; we have diets for losing weight; we have gyms with exercises for toning the thighs or for maintaining a flat abdomen.

Why do we have such an ideal, and what is the source of the pressure to measure up to it? Some feminists have claimed that the ideal comes from men. It is a product of the patriarchy, and as such, it is just one more way in which the patriarchy maintains its domination over women. However, this view is incomplete because it ignores the role of competition for social status, which is common among both men and women. A person’s appearance is an expression of her or his social status, and this is especially true of women. In the past, when few professional opportunities were open to women, their appearance expressed the social status of the men who supported them, but today, most women have jobs and even careers, and their social status is not dependent on that of their male partners. Instead, their appearance expresses their own social status.

The ideal of personal appearance that women face demands extreme slimness along with baby-soft skin. A woman is even expected to have soft skin on her heels as if she never had to walk anywhere! The ideal also demands that her hair always be perfectly arranged and that her make-up be perfectly applied. In addition, she must wear just the right, fashionable clothes along with just the right shoes and other accessories. None of this is possible for most women because it costs too much both in money and in time, So, what does the ideal really represent, and where does it come from?

The Theory of the Leisure Class

In 1899, the American economist Thorstein Veblen published The Theory of the Leisure Class, and in it he argued that society is composed of two classes: those who work and those who live from the work of others. He called the latter class “the leisure class,” and its members have much higher social status than the members of the working class. They display their higher status by publicly consuming products that show that they do not have to work and also by engaging in activities that show that they are able to waste a lot of time. For example, upper class men in Veblen’s day carried canes, and they wore hats that they had to remove indoors. Carrying these objects left their hands unavailable to do any work, and this demonstrated that they did not need to work. Upper class women wore elaborate dresses that made it impossible for them to do any work. Upper class people at that time ate long, elaborate meals, and this showed that they could afford to waste the time that the meals required.

Much of our ideal of feminine beauty fits perfectly into this framework. In a society where cheap food is widely available and our lives are very sedentary, staying slim requires adhering to expensive diets and spending time on exercise routines to maintain muscle tone and consume calories. Living up to the ideal of baby-like skin in middle age is also extremely expensive and time-consuming. Wearing “just the right clothes” costs a lot, and women easily recognize cheap copies of expensive brands. Having perfect hair and makeup is not only expensive, it is also very time-consuming. A woman who aspires to perfect hair and makeup can easily spend an hour or two each morning “putting on her face,” and if she goes out in the evening, she can spend another hour or two getting ready for that. Very few women can spare several hours a day on doing their hair and make-up.

The fact that most women cannot measure up to the ideal is not accidental. A social hierarchy cannot exist if everyone can meet the requirements for entering the top ranks. As Gilbert and Sullivan put it, “If everyone is somebody, then no one’s anybody.” A social institution cannot be exclusive if it doesn’t exclude anyone. The exclusion of the many is the price of the prestige of the few.

Pretending to Belong to the Leisure Class

The prestige can be high for those who can manage to approximate the ideal even in middle age. For example, Elizabeth Hurley, who is in her mid-fifties, receives endless prestige, envy, admiration and publicity when she poses in bikinis, but it is worth noting that she is never photographed doing the work that she must obviously do in order to continue to look the way she does at her age. Her publicity makes it seem as though the whole thing were effortless, and of course, nothing is said about the fact that the photos really serve as ads for the bikinis that are sold by her company. She is made to appear to be a member of the leisure class, and that is the crux of the matter. A woman who aspires to live up to our ideal of beauty must look as if she never had to work, and she if she can do that, she can attain the high social status that a life of leisure brings.

There is something archaic in all of this because today, the leisure class has almost disappeared. Today, most women who can afford to dress stylishly work for their money. Think for example of Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She believes in the ideal, and in many ways, she embodies it, but the strain that she is under shows itself in many ways. She has no time for her husband, and she routinely mistreats her employees. We see her in tears when she learns that her husband is leaving her, but we also see her telling her young assistant Andy that “Everyone wants to be us.”

Today’s women who try to live up to the ideal must in effect, pretend to be members of the leisure class. They present themselves as if they didn’t have to work, although everyone knows that they do. They adopt hair styles that minimize the time they need to spend on their hair, and they learn to do their makeup in a minimum of time. They go to yoga or Pilates classes after work. And somehow, they try to fit in time to spend with the people they love. The strain of all of this tells on them. They are tired, and they are frustrated. The source of the frustration and fatigue is the unrealism of the idea that an impractical and time-consuming appearance is an expression of high social status in a world where most women of high social status work for a living. We all know that the ideal is absurd and outdated, but it is difficult for a person to abandon it without stepping aside from the almost universal competition for social status that is a central part of life in our society.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

Issues of Gender Identity are Safe

 Safe Issues for Complacent, Well-to-Do People

The politics of gender identity provide a perfect set of issues for complacent, well-to-do, middle-class liberals and radicals. The issues include questions that are currently widely debated. Who is a man? Who is a woman? Can a person be “non-binary”? Is a person’s gender identity tied to his/her anatomical structure, or is it a matter of self-concept? Is a person’s gender identity permanent, or can it change during his/her life?[i]  

These issues are safe for because progressive positions concerning gender identity do not threaten anyone’s comfortable, social position or indeed any of the basic institutions of power and wealth in our country. People with large investment portfolios or successful businesses do not need to fear that accepting non-binary gender identities would threaten them with higher taxes or reduce the value of their investments. Politicians who accept large donations from oil companies or pharmaceutical companies do not need to fear that their donors would be hurt if anatomical boys who identify themselves as girls were allowed to use girls’ bathrooms in schools. Businesses would adjust easily to making money from transgender people. In short, a middle-class liberal may safely espouse progressive positions on the issues of gender identity without taking any serious risks. Their comfortable, middle-class positions will not be threatened.

Risky Issues

Other political issues are much riskier. A serious commitment to fighting climate change would require big adjustments in our economy. People with investment portfolios would risk losing money in those changes, and some businesses would go bankrupt. A decent, national health insurance program would threaten the incomes of medical professionals and eliminate millions of jobs in insurance companies. A decent supply of affordable housing would require changes in zoning laws, and those changes would affect the value of millions of middle-class homes.  Free post-secondary education would require most middle-class people to pay higher taxes and would subject their children to competition from the lower-class students who would be able to attend our universities.  And, of course, any serious approach to racial justice would require us to act on all of these issues.

We Don’t Act on Risky Issues

We do little or nothing to about these risky issues, and in fact, we do little to make life easier or better for the majority of our people. Climate change, although it threatens us all, has become a political football. Millions of otherwise sensible people oppose any kind of national, health insurance program although our mediocre health care system is by far the most expensive in the world. Our cities are full of homeless people, and millions of families are groaning under the burden of educational debts.  

While we are failing to act to resolve such important social problems, we read  serious articles in major newspapers that discuss the question of whether or not it is ok to use “they” as a singular pronoun, and our courts deal with lawsuits over the question of whether an anatomical boy who considers himself a girl may be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom in her school.

Liberals Get to Feel Virtuous

By espousing progressive positions on issues of gender identity, liberals get to feel morally superior. They get to feel that they are espousing freedom, the ability of an individual to express his/her true nature and the creation of a truly free society. They get to feel morally superior without taking any serious risks. Their positions and their wealth are not threatened. What could be more comfortable? What could be safer?



[i] The politics of sexual preference are another matter, and I am excluding them from this discussion. There can be no doubt that gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same freedoms and protections as straight people. Gay and lesbian people should be able to live their lives openly without fear of retaliation or prejudice. Gay and lesbian relationships should be portrayed in movies, plays and TV shows as natural and acceptable relationships.